Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lakhanlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33239
1 WP-1670-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 22nd OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 1670 of 2022
LAKHANLAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Miss Shikha Sharma - Government Advocate for the Respondent/State.
ORDER
The petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"1.That, it is therefore prayed that Hon'ble Court be
pleased to quash the impugned order dated 18.11.2020
(Annexure P/7) passed by respondent no. 4 and further may
kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the
respondents to prepare the pension case of the petitioners and
release the pension accordingly in stipulated time period, in the
interest of justice.
2. Any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court deems
fit and proper may also be granted."
2. The petitioners claim to be Gangmen in Public Works Department and seek
benefit of Pension on the ground that they were workcharged and Contingency paid
employees and therefore, they are entitled to pension in terms of M.P. Work charged
and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979 and that the respondents have
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33239
2 WP-1670-2022
erroneously denied pension to the petitioners though they were Gangmen.
3. Reliance is placed on judgment of Full Bench in the case of Vishnu and
Others Vs. State of M.P. and Others 2006 1 MPLJ 23 to contend that the Gangmen
are workcharged employees. It is further pointed out that petitioners were being
granted earned leaves in their service tenure which is only granted to Workcharged
and contingency paid employees.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies on a recent judgment passed by
a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.827/2018 Pannalal Vs. PWD & Others
whereby the Division Bench has taken note of the Full Bench judgment in Vishnu
(supra) so also the subsequent judgment in the case of Mamta Shukla Vs. State of
M.P. reported in (2011) 3 MPLJ 210 so also the provisions of the services rules of the
workcharged and contingency paid employees and held that Gangmen being
employees of workcharged and contingency paid establsihemnt are entitled to pension
as per the Pension Rules of 1979. The Division Bench has held as under :-
"The present order shall dispose of the writ appeal directed against
the order passed by the learned Single Bench on 18.6.2018, whereby the
respondents were directed to decide the representation in respect of
condition of age for the purpose of Limited Competitive Examination for
the post of Naib Tehsildar.
In Writ Petition No.12602/2018 [Ramji Tiwari and others Vs. The
State of MP and others] decided on 27.6.2018, this Court has found that
there is no age limit prescribed for filling up the post of Naib Tehsildar
from amongst Patwari and Revenue Inspector, on the basis of Limited
Competitive Examination.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33239
3 WP-1670-2022
The learned Single Bench has directed to decide the representation in
the light of an order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.9006/2017
(Vijay Kumar Vaidh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh). The said writ
petition pertains to 'ministerial cadre' for which Schedule V is admittedly
applicable. The appellant is not a member of the 'ministerial cadre', but a
'Graduate Patwari', to whom it has been found that Schedule V has not
been made applicable.
In view of the said fact, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by
the learned Single Bench is set aside. The writ appeal is allowed in same
terms as are recorded in Ramji Tiwari's case."
5. Learned counsel for the State though opposed the petition on the basis of
reply but could not point out any single distinguishing feature from the said judgment
of the Division Bench in the case of Pannalal (supra).
6. Therefore, the present petition is also allowed in similar terms and the
judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Pannalal (supra) as contained in para
13 of the said Order, it will apply mutatis mutandis to the present petitioners also and
their cases for pension shall be examined and processed on exactly the same lines as
in the case of Pannalal (supra).
7. Let necessary exercise be completed within a period of three months from the
date of production of certified copy of this Order.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:33239
4 WP-1670-2022
